Quote:
Originally Posted by BartHanson
So the real question here is can someone change their minds about running it more than once after the cards are revealed. We know that running the cards more than once does not change the equity of the hand so knowing what the other player holds also does not change the equity. I think Harry changed his mind because (and said) that he would never be able to win two times vs a set.
This is where the problem is with your logic. It takes 2 people to agree to run it twice. I have been in the situation many times and have asked and been asked "what do you have" before it is decided, one way or the other. This, obviously, didn't happen here, so the agreement was based on only the action, all-in and call. If you polled a thousand players, recs and pros, I would be willing to bet you you would not find more than a hand-full that would say it was okay for one person in a two person agreement to change the terms after the agreement was made after receiving "additional information" such as is the case here.
After they BOTH agreed to run it twice. Chris showed his cards. It was only after obtaining this additional information, info that was not available before they BOTH agreed to run it twice, that Harry, unilaterally, decided to run it once. Was it an angle. NO. Did Harry see the turn? No. Is that even the point? No. Was it cheating? No. Was it right? No. Was it scummy? Yes.
If it takes 2 people to agree to run it twice how can it be fair or reasonable for one person to change that agreement after he asks for additional information? "What do you have?" Let's look at a different case. What if Harry had Kings and Chris had Aces and they agree to run it twice before showing the hole cards. When the cards are shown someone else at the table says I folded a King. Would it be okay for Harry to say "I can't win it twice" and change the terms back to running it once without Chris agreeing? Or, vice versa, Chris changing it from running it once to running it twice because "he can't lose twice"? I don't think so.
If what you say is true, then what would stop a player from seeing the hands face up AND the turn AND then change his mind because "I can't win it twice"? Nothing, if your logic is correct....well, nothing but the implied contract of playing fair that most poker players abide by.
Further, the most telling part of Harry's behavior was when he started telling everybody that running it twice isn't in the "bylaws", whatever the hell those are. He got louder and louder. He repeated himself a dozen times. My guess is he was hoping if he said it enough he could bully everybody else in the game. He went on to say the house couldn't do anything because the rules don't allow for running it twice. He is, of course, correct. In some games, to accommodate the players, the house turns a blind eye to this rule and allows the players and dealers to run it twice. I think the house tried to reason with Harry, but in the end I believe their hands were tied. Running it twice is NOT a part of the state approved rules.
The immediate fallout from Harry's conduct is that players will no longer have the option to run it twice on LATB, or even in the whole casino.
Like you, I like Harry. I do not believe he was cheating and if he hadn't got so emotionally involved in arguing his point I think things might have gone different. I am 100% certain that Harry would not have agreed to run it twice had he known that Chris had a set....but he didn't, and he did agree to run it twice.
I hope, upon reflection, Harry mans up and pays Chris back for a pot that should have been split.
Last edited by 1938ford; 04-27-2018 at 10:40 PM.